then al-Bayhaqī narrated from ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī from Daḥīm who said: "This ḥadīth of Abū al-Dardāʾ has no basis." I said: This is what he said, and Ibn al-Turkumanī refuted it by saying: "I said: al-Bayhaqī narrated it here with a good chain, so I do not know the reason for its weakness and why it is said to have no basis." I said: And this is a strong refutation, supported by the statement of the ḥāfiẓ in "al-Talkhīṣ" (333): "al-Dārimī narrated it with a chain according to the conditions of Muslim, but his teacher ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyá ibn Ismāʿīl was not included by Muslim, and Abū Ḥātim said about him: there is nothing wrong with him." Then he mentioned the statement of Daḥīm. I said: And ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyá ibn Ismāʿīl was not the only one to narrate it, rather his brother Ibrāhīm ibn Yaḥyá ibn Ismāʿīl followed him. Ibn ʿAsākir narrated it in his biography (2/284/2) and did not mention any criticism or commendation about him. Then Ibn ʿAsākir narrated it through the chain of Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, who informed us from ʿAmr ibn Wāqid, who informed us from Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUbayd Allāh. I said: So this is another chain from Ismāʿīl, but it is weak, for ʿAmr ibn Wāqid is abandoned as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb," so reliance is on the first chain. And you have learned that Ibn al-Turkumanī considered its chain good, and the ḥāfiẓ indicated this, and it is deserving of that except that it has two defects: the first is that Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, although he is according to the conditions of Muslim, became confused in his later years as mentioned in "al-Taqrīb," and we do not know if he narrated this before or after his confusion. The second is that al-Walīd ibn Muslim, although he is among the narrators of the two Shaykhs, is known for much tadlīs and taswiyah, so it is feared that he may have omitted a man between Saʿīd and Ismāʿīl, and thus it is possible that the omitted person is weak, like ʿAmr ibn Wāqid or someone else, and perhaps this is the reason for Daḥīm's statement in